Btw i got them yesterday Josh thanks again! Greg
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Josh Malone <[email protected]> wrote: > I programmed the 4.9 release on the 2 I built for Greg. > > I got them from a file called R49_M100T102_236_rebuild.zip > > with checksums: > > 5ddfff2652f3757a54cfbb98aca6196e rf149.co > dcc1d9ef47b4673ea782a02bd6b5b575 RXF149.BR > 9e71cace85983e42a2f8c2a1f1f8894d tsd100.bx > > and timestamps: > > 4853 Nov 29 2015 rf149.co > 32768 Nov 29 2015 RXF149.BR > 32768 Aug 5 2009 tsd100.bx > > It contained the Y2K patch and I had no issues with it. > > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 5:29 PM, Jim Anderson <[email protected]> wrote: > > So I finally got all my parts - the items from China came much sooner > than expected, with three parcels arriving at once on Tuesday. Yay! This > included the AM29F800BB-70EC chips, so I was able to build the first one > using one of those, although I also ordered a couple of MX29F800CBTI-70G > from DigiKey which seem like they might be a suitable replacement. I'm > going to try building the next one using one of those chips and report back > on success or failure. > > > > I built the first one last night and managed to possibly ruin one > voltage regulator (depending on how much heat they can take (opinions > welcome), because I bridged the three pads on one side and ended up having > to remove it from the board, which took a lot longer than I had wanted). > Otherwise, it was a success and is working properly. > > > > Question for Stephen or others in-the-know: I installed the 4.9 software > release linked to from the 'Building a REX' wiki page - it's in the file > 'Beta R49 Dec 7 2013.zip' in Stephen's Member Upload Library area on > club100.org in a folder titled 'REX 4.9 Beta'. After installation I > started to wonder if this was the best version of 4.9 to use, since I > remember reading that 4.9 included a Y2K patch for the menu, and my menu > still says 1900. > > > > Looking on the 'REX Release 4.9' page on bitchin100.com, I see revision > 236 (which says it's buggy) and revision 162, both of which date from 2015, > leading me to conclude they're newer than the one I installed (based on the > date in 2013, since the version I installed has no revision number)... > would these be the releases with the Y2K menu patch? Is the version I > installed buggy and/or otherwise to be avoided? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > jim > > >
